As for the demands of the lawsuits, one seeks unspecified punitive damages and money to reimburse people who bought mobile phone headsets to reduce exposure to radiation, while the other demands that wireless telephone companies provide customers with headsets.

The lawsuits are being filed by high-profile Baltimore lawyer Peter Angelos, who previously helped the state of Maryland win US$4.2 billion in damages from the tobacco industry.

JOEL'S OPINION
While no conclusive evidence has been found to prove that mobile phones cause health problems, many lawsuits have been or are being filed against the mobile phone companies. These in particular could have a chance of winning, though, since they're being filed by a lawyer who already won against the tobacco industry. As a matter of fact, that was probably why he was chosen to go against the telephone companies.

The demands of the lawsuits aren't so terrible, though I'm not that big a fan of unspecified punitive damages. I definitely think that all mobile phones should be sold with headsets. Actually, I think almost all of them are now anyway.

It will be interesting to see how many other lawsuits end up being filed now that this one is gaining some attention. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who have used mobile phones all of their life and think that their health has deteriorated as a result.

Questions..(11:05am EST Fri Apr 20 2001)Wasn't it proven that hard/dense metals blocked large doses of harmful radiation? Isn't calcium a form of such metal? Isn't the human skull made up of calcum?Isn'tt his case a total waste of time which will only result in more useless cases? – by Wesley Mason

Non-ionizing!(11:17am EST Fri Apr 20 2001)The “radiation” frequency of cell phones isn't high enough to ionize molecules and therefore CAN'T cause the effects alleged. You might as well sue light bulb manufacturers or radio and TV broadcasters (all non-ionizing). These people are worthless leeches on society.

Maybe they should sue God for exposing us to truely dangerous radiation (ever get a sunburn?). – by raddad

i may be wrong(11:23am EST Fri Apr 20 2001)but, I'm pretty sure Calcium is not a metal. – by Chemistry, anyone?

Calcium(11:34am EST Fri Apr 20 2001)Calcium is a metal, but the skull is made of Calcium Carbonate, not a metal. – by raddad

re:Chemistry(11:36am EST Fri Apr 20 2001)You're right, calcium is a MINERAL, not a metal. Regarding the subject, how many hours a day do these lawyers spend on their cell phones discussing the dangers of using cell phones? – by Lt Cox

Um(11:52am EST Fri Apr 20 2001)I beleive that it's classified as a metal. In a crystalized form, it has the structure of metal.Anyhow, did anyone see the Andy Dick show covering this on Mtv?I've had this theory about radio waves destroying our brains. I even have an aluminum foil hat and body suit to reflect any transmitions.It's Friday, I'm in love. – by ypogeios

True(1:01pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)Cell phones are a major health threat to everyone who drives. If not for radiation certainly because morons drive while talking on the phone and not paying attention to the road.

HANG UP AND DRIVE! – by Zaphod

Beware of headsets…(1:05pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)…that actually help to focus more microware in to the skull. Some will actually make it worst. This is a real problem. Not everyone will get brain tumors but those who will always get them on the side of their favorite ear. Good enough evidence for me to be aware of the risks. – by President Nadar

Then we'll all have to wear loin cloths/togas, and use grunts/smoke signals for communication (that doesn't sound too bad).

Things get better… We've only been civilized for what… 70 years? (anything before that is BC… Before Computers)… just give it some more time… – by God™

Really a Tasp (Jesting – sort of).(1:52pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)It's amaxing that nobody seems to see the real problem – Cell phones are _addictive_. Very clever indeed, of the wireless manufactures to pick an operating frequency that mildly stimulates the pleasure centers in the brain – Yet nobody has caught on to this.

There are already studies that show that cell phone radiation can affect the brain's electrical activity – everybody is trying to link it with cancer, but re-arranging or triggering genes takes a MUCH higher radiation level than is needed to trigger neural activity.

That explain's why cell phone addicts busy getting their fix tend to be in accidents. It's why people will ignore everything around them to answer the cell call – even in the movie theaters or in a quiet restuarant – or even in hospitals and airplanes where they could interfere with other equipment.

Really – Cell phone addicts seem to have exactly the same behaviour patterns as any other addict. Try to make a cell phone addict go for a day without a fix, if you don't beleive me. And it's an addiction that is spreading so widely that the entire population is at risk.

It's about time that cell phones were recognized as being in the same category as other addictive substances…. the difference is just that the substance is EM radiation in this case. – by Liquor

cell headsets(2:09pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)I just wanted to comment that cell phone headsets cannot “focus” radiation. You see, the radiation we are all discussing in cell phones happens to be centered on the antennae of the cell phone. That's where the phone both sends and receives signals, and so therefore it never “channels” those signals through the headset. It merely relays the electrical sound signal to the speaker of the phone, or headset, and if THAT signal were harmful, then using your walkman or discman, or even your favorite MP3 player would eventually be fatal. – by SuperMachine

This is BS(2:50pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)All electronic devices emit EMI. This is total bullshit. Cell phones are dangerous, yes, but so is sitting in front of a cathode ray tube (PC/TV) all day.

Youre more likely to get cancer from going out in the sun.

Oh and btw, Calcium is a metal. Look in the periodic table of the elements. – by Jewsh

Calcuim is a metal(3:21pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)A very reactive one, if your skull was made out of the metallic form of Calcium it would disentegrate in a few minutes ). The calcium in bones is in a different chemical form, it's most definately not pure calcium, otherwise I'd be deadddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd – by MyHeadIsMashingTheKB

cell headsets(4:13pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)…Can focus the radiation. There have been studies that show this was an issue. I believe the wire in the headset acts like an antennae and picks up the signal from the nearby cell antennae's output. – by cobalt

…(4:41pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)cobalt: the singular is antenna, not antennae. It has an antenna. It has some antennae. – by GrammarNazi

Science for the masses(5:58pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)1) You can call calcium a metal or not. (It is). The point is that calcium does not behave like iron or copper or the what's generally thought of as the “normal” (transition metals). The question is, does calcium absorb microwave radiation? No. What does asborb uwaves is water, which is why cell phones give pause for concern (little water in skull, crapload in brain). Who knows though? There really aren't studies on whether a weak uwave source near the head does anything – by Studying for prelims

Science for the masses 2(6:00pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)2) Radiation doesn't have to be ionizing (X-ray or shorter wavelength) to be damaging to biological tissue. Case in point, UV. Skin cancer can be facilitated through UV exposure, and UV does not cause ionization of biomolecules. (It does have enough energy to convert bond locations to form cyclobutane, forming thymidine dimers). Still, study the damn phone emissions. – by Still studying

Antenna, antennae…(6:04pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)Sorry, I didn't know how to spell antenna either way, so I just pulled it from an earlier post… – by cobalt

Studying for GCSES(6:08pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)Yeah, but the point is that in 'absorbing' the radiation, the water is becoming ionised, which is kinda the whole problem… – by Charmaka

Go back to class(6:19pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)No. Microwave radiation does NOT ionize water. At all. Period. It is simply not strong enough to severe a covalent bond to generate free radicals.

Good luck with your studying, you'll need it. :) – by still still studying

No Poblem(8:35pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001)I hav been usng cell phone for a long time and I am not suffering any eel effects. I fel pperffectly fine. I wud be happy to testify for the cell industriy – by user

ROTF, LMAO @ user(11:09pm EST Fri Apr 20 2001):) – by Anon. Cow

I'd Be Happy to..(12:13am EST Sat Apr 21 2001)…let these morons from phone companies test all the freaking phones they can throw on the market on me (for a small favor – a brand new BMW M3, and $50,000 spending cash)!I'll test the phones 24/7 if needed, and they can use all that data towards the legal case above if they feel like it… – by FireStarter

Yo, SuperMachine(4:33am EST Sat Apr 21 2001)there are two ways poorly made headset increase the microwave radiation. One, the transmitter is not well shield and leaks microwave up the wire to your ears. And some headsets act as receiving antennae and focus a bit more radiation into the brain. And yes, it is not ionizing but that is not necessary totally harmless. And it seems only strike the heavy users, not the mild users.

Good headset, shield and designed to be transparent to microwaves help. Just a few extra inches help a lot.

Liquor, this stimulation of the pleasure center is new and scary. I did near of a therapy that involve RF in the brain to restore balance.

I am staying away for these things. Who needs to talk on phone so damn much away. – by President Nadar

Nadar is full of shit(4:46pm EST Sat Apr 21 2001)Firstly, to those ignorant fuckers who don't know any chemistry, Ca is a group II METAL.

+ President Nadar – small quantities of microwave radiation presents NO risk to biological tissue. That much is obvious to anyone who has some education. Also, a big trial by Oxford University, UK shows NO correlation between cell phone use and location of tumors.

Anyone who claims phones in any configuration cause cancer should be put down.

+

UK just had its 2nd £1,000,000 winner on Who Wants to be a Millionaire… – by Metals…

Now Joel….(10:32pm EST Sat Apr 21 2001)you said, in one sentence…and Iquote,“As a matter of fact, that was 'probably' why he was chosen to go against the telephone companies”

Matter of 'FACT','PROBABLY'? That no much good grammar Joel.And now, I will shed light on what Daisy had for lunch today…Ms. Daisy had halibut on wheat w/ apricots. – by chen (be chinin)

Magnetic radiation is similar to the earth's magnetic field. There's evidence that intense magnetic fields – such as near a dynamo or a Tokamak – cause a rare brain cancer: astrocytoma. The earth's magnetic field (800 milligauss) dwarfs magnetic fields encountered by the public (the voicecoil in a cell phone).

Electric radiation are fields encountered in proximity to power lines, thunderstorms, and nerve conduction in the body. That said, exposure to almost any electric field encountered (the power supply in a cell phone) is insignificant compared to that within one's own body.

Microwave radiation (RF, radio frequency) is used by cell phones to communicate. Exposure to high levels of microwave radiation generally produce only “thermal effects”. There is some limited evidence that exposure to high levels of microwaves can denature proteins. Again, at levels way, way, way, way above anything encountered from a cell phone.

So we see there's no mechanism for a cell phone to cause/contribute to cancer. Epidemiological studies (USA, Denmark) have shown no cancer linked to cell phone use. Maybe their car is causing the brain tumor – plasticizers leaching from vinyl interiors, exposure to benzene when pumping gas, auto exhaust is a known carcinogen. Or perhaps there's a % of the population that will get a brain tumor. A high % also have cell phones. It's a high probability that a person with a brain tumor uses a cell phone. The link is circumstantial, not causative.– by Mark Rollins

Brain tumors…(12:48pm EST Mon Apr 23 2001)The number of brain tumors diagnosed is going up in the population, but the reasons for that are unclear, and no study has clearly linked the increase to any agent. It may be that we are seeing more because we can image them much easier, and tend to catch them sooner. So far, neither clinical, epidemiologic, or hard laboratory data has linked ANY microwave radiation to the production of brain tumors. In addition, microwaves heat tissue and congeal proteins, they do not alter DNA or transcription/translation pathways.

The number of cell phone users has also increased drastically, especially in the USA and western Europe. The same population that is having its' tumors diagnosed more frequently.

People with brain tumors are angry, as this is part of the grieving process. As there are no answers to where the tumors came from, some are looking to assign blame. This is natural. Unfortunately, the attorneys have found a way to attempt to cash in on this anger.

As far as I am aware, the types of tumors have not been consistent. In addition, why have there been no suits for skin or bone cancers of the ears or face? These occur clinically more frequently and statistically more often than brain tumors.

It would appear to me that there is absolutely no convincing evidence on any level, to suggest that brain tumors are related to cell phone use. – by Scott E.

chewing gum(2:18am EST Sun Dec 29 2002)how is chewing gum harmful? I was told that it does something to the brain. what does it do to the brain? – by anonomys

TO RAD DAD (10:35pm EST Tue Jan 14 2003)

A comment to Raddad…

You say maybe someone should sue god for exposing us to Radiation from the sun?

I think you better back up RADDAD ..EVER heard of phototoxicity Big boy??

Should I educate you in this area?

Radiation from the sun is utilized by most of us as a form of Vitamin D,which is good for us. Radiation in excess is bad for us as we know,however MOST of us..excluding those with Xeroderma pigmentosa, Lupus ,poryphrias' ect can't tolerate the normal sun exposure that most normal people can.

But MR RAD DAD ~~ Lets not forget the chemicals ( DRUGS ) over the counter as well as script that cause phototoxicity ..Mild or severe these drugs' react with UVA and create DNA mutations that dis-able our cutaneous system from the normal aptosis process so that when apotosis occurs it is altered and cancerous cells are left intact ,thus in turn skin tumors develope at an abnormal rate.

CHECK the warnings on quinolones' ( antibiotics') some of them are already removed from the market due to severe phototoxic effects' The poor lab mice developed Squamous cell carcinoma's in 16 weeks and had a cluster of other skin lesions' as well .

Did you KNOW that antihistamines have the same rate of phototoxicity as the quinolones' reported through the FDA ,yet they ignore this because there are so many phototoxic drugs' that they can't keep track?

EVER wonder WHY some can worship the sun for years with NO apparent cancerous lesions' while some having just a little exposure develope lesions at an alarming rate?

Wonder why some idiot Dr's continue to refer to melamonas' as being cuased by TOO MUCH SUN EXPOSURE ,when the majority of melanomas occur on areas that are NOT exposed to the sun??

Mobile Phones(6:39am EST Wed Mar 17 2004)Thank you all for your comments I'll be leving you now boffins!!!!!!!!!!!! – by Harry

Cell phones and cancers(11:04am EST Tue Dec 21 2004)Folks, the amount of hype and unsubstantiated positions about cell phones, emf, tumors, cancers, etc. present in these forums, parading as facts is amazing. In reading these posts, bear in mind, that many of the writers have an axe to grind. Just because they have an opinion and visit a few websites, and throw out a bunch of undefined acronyms and cite studies without providing proper references to them so they can be verified by the reader does not mean that their statements are credible or true.

Don't trust a source on the internet merely because you agree with their conclusions, or because the site looks nice. Look at their sources. Do they provide references so you can verify the “facts” they quote. What is the education of the writes? Are they writing in an objective style or is every other sentence hype, filled with phrases like “YES, CELL PHONES CAUSE CANCERS AND THEY WILL KILL YOU!!!!!!”?

For objective, and understandable analysis of environmental health and safety information, I recommend

ways of protection from radioenergy(7:19am EST Sat Jun 25 2005)hello there!i want to ask what is the best way to protect our selves from the radioenergy of the cell-phone.What is the best way?1.wire headsets?2.bluetooth headsets?3.certain devices on the mobile?4.other ways?I hope that you someone will give me an answer on this very basic concern that i have! thank you you! – by Dimitris

Well, (2:52pm EST Thu Dec 15 2005)HEY THIS IS %#^*@$@ SIMPLE, IF YOU CAN HANDLE TO DRIVE AND TALK ON THE PHONE, EARPIECE OR NOT, THEN DO IT. ALSO IF YOU CAN PAY THE FINES – by NAOMI MIAMI